Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
'Do Two Ounces of Marijuana Constitute a Death Warrant?'
What would you do if masked, armed men burst into your home early in the morning? Anthony Diotaiuto, a 23-year-old bartender in Sunset*, Florida, ran to his bedroom and got his pistol, whereupon he was gunned down by two members of a SWAT team. Police had a search warrant alleging "drug-related activity." In addition to Diotaiuto's corpse, the search produced two ounces of pot, a scale, and some plastic bags.
Police, who knew Diotaiuto had a handgun permit, claim they announced their presence before invading the house. The neighbors say they didn't:
Next-door neighbor Rudy Strauss told the Sun-Sentinel he and his wife were awake when the raid occurred and heard the crash of Diotauito's door being smashed in, but heard no yelling announcing the presence of police. There were no words spoken outside, he said, adding that he and his wife watched the raid unfold from their window. "I heard this loud bang, and I saw a flash," Strauss said Tuesday. "I never heard them say 'Police.' If somebody were pounding on the door, I would definitely hear that, or if they yelled, 'Police, police!'"
Residents outraged by the raid attended a city council meeting this week. "Do two ounces of marijuana constitute a death warrant?" one of them asked. The Drug War Chronicle notes that the police say "they sent in the SWAT team to lessen the possibility of violence. They did not explain why they thought a surprise attack on the home of an unsuspecting but presumably armed man would produce a nonviolent result."
[*As ed points out, the city is Sunrise, not Sunset, although the latter seems more fitting.]
|8.12.05 @ 11:30AM|#
"they sent in the SWAT team to lessen the possibility of
violence"
Well you see, I had my dog crap on your lawn the lessen the
possibility of dogshit.
|8.12.05 @ 11:30AM|#
*tic* This is what disarmament of the citizenry was supposed to prevent. */tic*
|8.12.05 @ 11:36AM|#
The answer is "Of course it's not."
Hate to jack the thread, but it is worth noting the statements by
Karen Tandy of the DEA when they arrested Marc Emery (reported from
DRCNET.ORG):
While DEA officials in Seattle focused on accusations on drug
dealing in their public statement, a column by Joel Connelly in the
Seattle Post-Intelligencer this morning quotes a statement by DEA
chief Karen Tandy suggesting political motivations: " Today's
arrest of Mark (sic) Scott Emery, publisher of Cannabis Culture
magazine and the founder of a marijuana legalization group, is a
significant blow not only to the marijuana trafficking trade in the
US and Canada, but also to the marijuana legalization movement...
Hundreds of thousands of dollars of Emery's illicit profits are
known to have been channeled to marijuana legalization groups
active in the United States and Canada. Drug legalization lobbyists
now have one less pot of money to rely on."
This whole fucking thing is about preventing the legalization of
marijuana.
The good news is that since DEA pretty much admitted that this is
political persecution, it will make Canada that much more reluctant
to extradite Marc to the US.
|8.12.05 @ 11:37AM|#
Jeez guys, you have to expect a little collateral damage now and then, there's a (drug) WAR on. It's worth it to get rid of the scourge of marijuana. Right? Right?
|8.12.05 @ 11:42AM|#
These tactics are necessary to the invention of the toilet, had
they knocked first he may have flushed the dope first.
Unfortunatelly, this is the result all too often.
But at least he was a predatory criminal and not someone innocent.
Everyone allways gets what they deserve.
|8.12.05 @ 11:44AM|#
"Jeez guys, you have to expect a little collateral damage now
and then, there's a (drug) WAR on. It's worth it to get rid of the
scourge of marijuana. Right? Right?"
Right! I mean if we can kill innocent Iraqis "for their own good"
surely we won't shed a tear for some stupid dope head while we make
an investment in the future security of our country from
narco-terrorists, right?
|8.12.05 @ 11:52AM|#
I may be losing my marbles here, but didn't Reason have an article many moons ago about the same thing happening to some old eccentric LA guy on a multimillion dollar estate. A DEA and a LAPD were apperently flying over said estate in a chopper and one of them claimed they saw the Mary Jane growing on the guy's land (both pointed the finger at the other one for the "hey, I see pot" comment during the ensuing investigation). Smelling a nice chunk of high-priced LA real estate they could grab under forfeiture laws the LAPD stormed the house and killed the guy when he came down the stairs holding a shotgun.
|8.12.05 @ 11:53AM|#
Is it wrong that Jane's continual defense of jack-booted
government thuggery gets me all hot and bothered?
Seriously, Jane, waaaay hot. Say some more.
|8.12.05 @ 11:58AM|#
Nathan,
IIRC, it was LA county sherrif's dept, not LAPD. But yeah, that was
a famous case.
One thing about a lot of SWAT tactics: they are predicated upon
dealing with professional druggies, who know what to do when the
cops arrive. When applied to honest citizens, they often are a
disaster.
One famous case is the old guy who tried to defend his home with a
black powder cap and ball revolver. SWAT shot him in the head, IIRC
he survived and they charged him with murder since his revolver
discharged when he was shot. Pretty sure SWAT had the wrong
address.
|8.12.05 @ 12:00PM|#
Pretty sure SWAT had the wrong address.
This has happened more than once. Quite frankly, with the number of
people in this country who own guns, and the number of stumblefuck
SWAT teams out there who don't seem to know how to double check an
address, I'm surprised that it doesn't happen more often.
drf|8.12.05 @ 12:05PM|#
YEAH. the guy'd dun rong (sic). he deserves punishment. that's
why we backboarded him first. cuz he was in a suspicious area.
don't you want to do it fer the chidren (sic)?????
I guess the computer room at Jane's grouphome was left open
again...
p.s., happy friday.
|8.12.05 @ 12:07PM|#
What does it say about the police's relationship to the
community that they could get the wrong house?
If they were doing their job, there wouldn't be any question.
They'd know which house has people coming and going all hours of
the night, or whatever. They wouldn't have to check the address,
because they'd know it as "the green house on the right, with the
dangling mailbox," like the neighbors do.
|8.12.05 @ 12:24PM|#
the search produced two ounces of pot, a scale, and some
plastic bags
Wow, like most people I've got two-thirds of that stuff in my house
right now!!!
|8.12.05 @ 12:24PM|#
Why couldn't they just wait till he woke up and came outside on
his own? Don't intend to make a tasteless pun by using the term
overkill, but even without the shooting, that's what this is. At
most a two bit dealer who probably just cuts up ounces and sells
the quarter to his buddies to make an extra 20 here and there. a
SWAT team for that. Ugh.
Too many cops, not enough crime.
But yet if I refuse to waste a giant chunk of my income in order to
fund all this nonsense, I'M the bad guy.
drf|8.12.05 @ 12:24PM|#
Hey Joe! Happy Friday!
[Ashcroft-style](Expecting police to do that type of policing is,
well, a bit beyond kicking ass. They can't be social workers, too.
*pat pat* just leave the law enforcement to those with the matches
and lighterfluid) [/Ashcroft-style]
barf.
Policing is a tough gig: you have to shoot, punch, drive, do PR,
know all the dogs, kids, and neighbors - but when it works well, as
what Joe suggests, lots of these problems can go away.
Plus, a simple deportation of all dime-baggers to Sweden where they
can share an efficiency apartment with seven dissidents and one
toilet with Roman Maroni might be much more effective than shooting
them.
Joe is totally correct: The beat cop in our neighborhood knows
everybody, and everybody knows him. He knows how to deal with
skateboarding kids and LOLs. He's a nice guy. He looks pretty
tough, too. Having correct intelligence about the neighborhood is
one of the most important tools of law enforcement. It's the
"serving" part of "protect and serve".
why is the image of Charles Durning yelling at Christopher Lloyd
(SCHULZZZZZZZ!!!) in the mel brooks remake of "to be or not to be"
in my head now?
|8.12.05 @ 12:30PM|#
Hate to jack the thread
Randy- At least you apologized.
Is it wrong that Jane's continual defense of jack-booted
government thuggery gets me all hot and bothered?
mediageek- Maybe you're horny for trolls. Do you watch the Lord
of the Rings movies a lot?
A SWAT team for a lone dealer with a handgun? Was this guy formerly
in Delta Force or something?
|8.12.05 @ 12:33PM|#
The link omits some details from the original story, although
none of it justifies wasting the dude.
"The Police Department also gave a brief description of the
information that led to the search warrant. Voss said that the
department had the house under surveillance and made at least one
"controlled" drug purchase there."
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-cswat10aug10,0,7916325.story?coll=sfla-sports-headlines&track=mostemailedlink
Kind of explains why the guy had scales, and why he kept a piece.
Doesn't really justify why SWAT was involved - they could have
rolled this guy up at work, then just searched the house with
nobody there. Terrible decision by the cops on this one.
|8.12.05 @ 12:38PM|#
"just leave the law enforcement to those with the matches and
lighterfluid"
LoL
|8.12.05 @ 12:39PM|#
I could be wrong, but I don't think cities receive manna from
DHS for community policing.
Tanks and paramilitary training, you bet.
But this stuff doesn't suprise me. Why else does every little burg
have a SWAT team, to stop terrorists?
|8.12.05 @ 12:42PM|#
Why are people talking about different tactics the cops shoulda used instead of how it's just plain wrong that mj is even illegal in the first place? Seriously.
|8.12.05 @ 12:48PM|#
Every time Jane posts, I am going to sell drugs to
someone.
I don't even sell drugs, but I am going to start, just to piss her
off.
|8.12.05 @ 12:49PM|#
Comrades, welcome to the USSA, United Soviet States of
Americia.
I remember back in the dark ages, when Raygun was first dishing out
para-mil training funding to local police and Meese was going after
the 4th amendment, everyone kept saying, Don't worry gringo, the
conservatives are all for small government. Not like those big bad
liburals! (of course now that all Democratics have become
Republican lite, it's a mute point anyway)
|8.12.05 @ 12:59PM|#
This is so sad.
The worst part is this will inevitably end up with some half-ass
apology: "Oh, gosh, we really should have been more careful." This
guy was murdered. There should be several cops spending life in
prison for this murder.
Apparently I have nothing better to do than preach to the
choir.
Chrisd, why don't you drop a couple ounces off in Jane's backyard
and call SWAT?
|8.12.05 @ 1:13PM|#
Yet another reason to have absolutely no respect for these goons. I seriously think they use these SWAT tactics essentially because they think it's fun to dress up and play army-guy and they get off on the "excitement" of a big raid. Of course they rarely seem to go after anyone that might actually require such tactics or who could actually hurt them - just some poor guy with a couple ounces of pot. Fucking cowards.
ed|8.12.05 @ 1:14PM|#
The lack of outrage outside the victim's immediate circle is what's shocking. The propaganda wing of the War on Drugs has earned another medal.
|8.12.05 @ 1:19PM|#
Cops on SWAT really scare me. These type of cops like to get themselves involve in "harry" situations; "it's what we live for "(a SWAT member actually said that on national television during a interview with the history channel). Cops sometimes get over anxious.
|8.12.05 @ 1:21PM|#
In addition to Diotaiuto's corpse, the search produced two
ounces of pot, a scale, and some plastic bags.
I see that there had been an entrapment, pardon me, "controlled
drug purchase" already made, so its possible that the pot was there
before the cops.
Its also possible it wasn't. When I read the post, the first thing
I thought was "this has throwdown written all over it."
You're a vice squad detective, you call in a raid that results in a
dead citizen, you'll make sure, damn sure, that there are drugs on
the premises.
|8.12.05 @ 1:25PM|#
It just keeps getting worse, doesn't it? And I can't think of a damned thing to do about it. Damn the Republicans and Democrats both.
|8.12.05 @ 1:30PM|#
Lowdog,
Because getting killed by a SWAT team is way, way worse thank
getting a ticket or community service for pot possession. Yes, it's
bad that mj is illegal. It's even worse that cops use SWAT teams to
kill suspected dealers.
Why does every police force in America need military equipment?
|8.12.05 @ 1:32PM|#
Another scary note: I found only one newspaper outside of Florida (Long Island Newsday) bothered to cover this story when I searched Google news.
|8.12.05 @ 1:34PM|#
Why does every police force in America need military
equipment?
Because you need military equipment if you're going to fight The
Enemy. And that's how cops view non-cops--not citizens deserving of
protection, but The Enemy. Even the fact that non-cops are referred
to as "civilians" leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
|8.12.05 @ 1:34PM|#
You're a vice squad detective, you call in a raid that
results in a dead citizen, you'll make sure, damn sure, that there
are drugs on the premises.
R C, that wouldn't surprise me at all. But, wouldn't they have
thrown down something worse than a couple ounces of pot to cover
themselves? Seems like a syringe, some crack or a box of Sudafed at
least
screwtape|8.12.05 @ 1:38PM|#
Here in Nashville, Swat members entered a man's home in the
evening without announcing themselves. Since they were not wearing
any easily identifiable clothing, the man thought he was being
robbed and reached for his gun. He was shot several times in the
chest and died on the scene.
It turns out that they were supposed to be entering the house 2
lots down and made a boo boo that cost an innocent man his life.
Did I mention that his poor wife was being handcuffed in the other
room while this took place? Oh and that his wife was 70 and he was
61?
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/10/06/tennessee.shooting.02.ap/
|8.12.05 @ 1:41PM|#
Brain,
Sadly no, pot will do.
Jennifer,
What's truly strange is that the priority is the safety of the
officers rates higher than the public they're supposed to protect
and serve. I can understand the cops feeling this way, but they
don't even try to diguise it.
Pete Guither|8.12.05 @ 1:47PM|#
As long as we continue to allow our police forces to the lives
of citizens (and cops) to be less important than the flushing of a
couple of ounces of marijuana, there will be a lot more cases like
this.
I'll be adding Diotaiuto soon to my list of similar
drug war victims.
We must, as a society, come to the conclusion that busting down a
door to make an arrest should be reserved for those rare situations
where it is required to save the lives of citizens (like hostage
situations). Not for pot busts.
|8.12.05 @ 1:50PM|#
"I seriously think they use these SWAT tactics essentially
because they think it's fun to dress up and play army-guy and they
get off on the "excitement" of a big raid."
I seriously think that the cops are so afraid of and alienated from
the general public that they think they have to behave like this.
Especially in California, the land that turned "neighborhood" into
a dirty word.
|8.12.05 @ 1:52PM|#
About DHS funding and small-town terrorists, my small CT town
has recently decided that they will no longer publish the public
school bus routes to reduce the risk of "terrorism and child
predators."
It's a good thing we have such fine minds working in Fairfield
County.
|8.12.05 @ 1:53PM|#
Folks, things have changed since 9/11. We can no longer sit and watch while the marijuana terrorists eat all our Doritos!
Vache Folle|8.12.05 @ 1:58PM|#
A similar event took place in Whitfield County, GA. Two deputies, who claimed to be acting on an anonymous tip about drugs, broke into the home of an elderly man who used a walker at night. They shot him to death in his bed where he was trying to defend himself with the gun he kept in his nightstand. They did not announce themselves, either, and I don't think they found drugs. The shooting was ruled by the GBI to be righteous!
|8.12.05 @ 2:00PM|#
Even the fact that non-cops are referred to as "civilians"
leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Thank you, Jennifer, I thought I was the only one who found that
disturbing. And what about "Civilian Review Boards"?.
I won't bore everyone by linking Sir Robert Peel's nine points
again.
Fuck it, yes I will.
http://www.magnacartaplus.org/briefings/nine_police_principles.htm
See also Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.
http://www.leap.cc/
|8.12.05 @ 2:02PM|#
Alienated? Certainly. Afraid? I don't think so.
I think the individual officers do get a sense of excitement out of
the raid which explains their enthusiasm for it (but as I said, I
bet they're not so enthusiastic against a well defended target). As
for their prevalence (SWAT teams) I think it has more to do with
pork. Once you've secured a lot of funding to set up, train and
maintain a SWAT team you feel some need to justify its presence and
use it. Since there is no were near enough real crime to justify
the number of SWAT teams you need to manufacture some "crime" -
like convincing the public that a guy with a couple ounces of pot
is a dangerous criminal.
|8.12.05 @ 2:03PM|#
Ugh. I forgot to include the quote I was referring to:
I seriously think that the cops are so afraid of and alienated
from the general public that they think they have to behave like
this.
|8.12.05 @ 2:04PM|#
"Hi! I'm from the government, and I'm here to kill
you."
Portlander, best gallows humor of the day, so far...
I was watching a report on CNN during lunch at BK yesterday, and
they were showing some bomb-sniffing dogs and their trainer
explaining how these cute, friendly dogs were protecting America
from terrorist threats. Then the trainer cop says, "Yeah, they
train on marijuana first, then they move to heroin..." I thought -
WTF? Is the entire "war on terror" just an extension
(justification?) for the "war on drugs"??
|8.12.05 @ 2:10PM|#
A perfect example of the real intent behind handgun registration statutes; it gives the police a phony reason to further militarize themselves and to assist trigger happy politicians to chip away at the tiny fraction of rights we have left.
|8.12.05 @ 2:12PM|#
About DHS funding and small-town terrorists, my small CT
town has recently decided that they will no longer publish the
public school bus routes to reduce the risk of "terrorism and child
predators."
Jeebus. Since these busses take exactly the same route at exactly
the same time every day, I don't think Johnny Jihadi is going to
need a written schedule to figure it out.
|8.12.05 @ 2:13PM|#
Randolph--
What the hell town is that? Geez, just when I think Connecticut
can't get any more ridiculous. . . .
Isaac-
No, it's not just you. Maybe it's just because I was an English
major, but I DO think that language is important. Orwell got that
right. Euphemisms and innuendo are fine when talking about bathroom
or sex activities, but I find them EXTREMELY unpleasant when
they're used by the government to muddy the view of their own
activities. I think the difference between "citizen" and "civilian"
is of far more than mere semantic importance.
|8.12.05 @ 2:14PM|#
WTF? Is the entire "war on terror" just an extension
(justification?) for the "war on drugs"??
Yes. What else are the police going to do with all this "war on
terror" funding when there just isn't enough terror around to
fight? As mentioned above, there isn't enough real crime - so the
only possible outcome of all this expanded power is the police
using it agaist drug "crimes."
|8.12.05 @ 2:17PM|#
Police told reporters the day of the shooting they knew
Diotaiuto has a license to possess a weapon...
Actually since one is not required to have a license to
possess a gun in Florida I think what they must have meant
that he had a concealed carry permit.
drf|8.12.05 @ 2:18PM|#
"About DHS funding and small-town terrorists, my small CT town
has recently decided that they will no longer publish the public
school bus routes to reduce the risk of "terrorism and child
predators."
Jeebus. Since these busses take exactly the same route at exactly
the same time every day, I don't think Johnny Jihadi is going to
need a written schedule to figure it out."
Yes, but RC - Johnny "huge durka" Jihadi (is he related to the
terrorist "ischeet m'drawz" or "mustaf herod upyor poupr"?), since
busses are public, they run irregularly, despite printed schedules.
Therefore an inside job would be needed to minimize johnny's
waiting time. remember how forest gump bored the first one to
death... (how 'bout dem Pack?)
|8.12.05 @ 2:18PM|#
All I can say is you got to send a message to the
community and the politicians that you will not stand for this.
This is something we do at Seattle Hempfest. I know the name
invokes images of "burned out hippies" flashing peace signs and
passing pipes. But as this story and some of the commenters stories
point out, its not just the hippies that are getting gunned down by
those that are sworn to protect you. Innocent people from all walks
of life are getting caught up in this mess.
I would certainly like to know how the cop who shot this guy feels.
Is it a thrill to him or is he regretful? We should be asking him
and his superiors if 2 ounces is worth a death warrant. Some, I am
sure, will justify it by saying it was self defence. But deep down,
they know the truth, how does that make them really feel?
|8.12.05 @ 2:23PM|#
Jennifer - I can't disclose my exact location, but it's between Stamford and Norwalk
|8.12.05 @ 2:29PM|#
I would certainly like to know how the cop who shot this guy
feels. Is it a thrill to him or is he regretful? We should be
asking him and his superiors if 2 ounces is worth a death warrant.
Some, I am sure, will justify it by saying it was self defence. But
deep down, they know the truth, how does that make them really
feel?
How much guilt do you think was experienced by the witch hunters
who burned to death people who did NOT have Satanic powers? How
much guilt felt by the torturers of the Inquisition? How much guilt
did Mao's henchmen feel when 50 million of their compatriots
starved to death?
When you're talking about murderous, power-abusing thugs there are
two possibilities--they're sociopaths (or even psychopaths), in
which case the idea of a conscience doesn't even apply, or else
they behave in good conscience because they've convinced themselves
that the people they kill really were threats. Aaargh! We have to
kill the witches before they cast a spell and bring back the
plague! We have to kill the Jews before they contaminate the
precious German body politic! We have to kill the capitalists who
threaten our precious workers' utopia! We have to kill the pot
smokers who want to turn our children into zombies!
And they sincerely believe this, too.
|8.12.05 @ 2:36PM|#
To add to my last post, if you're the type of person who thinks
marijuana needs to be illegal it doesn't matter that there are only
two ounces.
Let's say you're an HONEST cop, and you raid the home of a man whom
you believe has enough anthrax to kill all of Manhattan. But after
he's dead, you learn he only had enough anthrax to kill two or
three people. Are you going to fell guilty?
Adam|8.12.05 @ 2:42PM|#
To capitalize on RandyAyn's threadjack, Marc Emery's got a
piece
up about his Capitalism Activism that should warm the hearts of
any and all libertarians, and most freedom-lovers of all
stripes.
Emery apparently was a free speech pioneer (speaking about
marijuana was illegal in Canada as late as 1994), and a relentless
advocate of the Right to Shop on Sundays.
As for killing this cat, what the fuck is wrong with these people?
I'm sure the right will be screaming their bloody heads off about
how cops can do no wrong again.
I'd like to point out that the Orlando Sentinel is the same paper
that reported the baby's ashes/cocaine search earlier this
week.
|8.12.05 @ 2:46PM|#
The bastards had better be "afraid",...Some of us "civilians" are getting pretty fed up with this kind of shit!
|8.12.05 @ 2:51PM|#
Jennifer,
Certainly understand your sentiments but I don't fully believe that
all cops are stripped of there humanity. In fact, I have cops in my
family who believe in leaving the single toker alone but if they
are caught selling on the playground, all hell will break loose.
ONDCPs statistics even suggest many of these cops have either tried
smoking pot or may even still be occassional users.
Futhermore, there are lots of cops who don't want to raid a house
merely on suspicion of pot dealing, they are forced to as per their
job requirements. Therefore, I ask, does the shooter have a
conscious and what is it doing to him/her? Yes, you may be correct,
but then again, somewhere along the line, many cops have had enough
and started LEAP, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.
Finally, as a core member of the Seattle Hempfest, I have
interacted many times with SPD. Nearly all that I have talked to
don't beleive in this level of enforcement and some go as far as
calling for full decriminalization and possibly even legalization.
As to what Jacob Sullum refers to from time to time, they feel too
much of their resources are sucked into this and less to focus on
more violent criminals. This has an effect on precint moral.
You maybe surprised one day when you might see the shooter join
LEAP and speak about what they were a part of. These are the cops
we need at the forefront. They are needed to tell their stories to
their superiors and politicians.
|8.12.05 @ 3:04PM|#
"ONDCPs statistics even suggest many of these cops have either
tried smoking pot or may even still be occassional users."
The ones who still have some humanity, you mean.
|8.12.05 @ 3:06PM|#
I find myself saying this a lot lately: I have a lot of respect
for people whose job is to risk their lives on a daily basis to
keep safety, order,and ultimately, freedom in our society.
I'm bothered by people who hate cops just for the hell of it,
especially when a lot of those people have had well-deserved
encounters with the police. That being said, I absolutely can not
stand bullshit like this. I feel like every time I read something
about cops being assholes, it's of course the drug war. From cases
of clear entrapment to blowing away someone whose biggest sin was
probably getting stoned and eating some potato chips on the couch,
to that "let's arrest Indian clerks who don't understand our meth
lingo" sting that was written about on Hit and Run last week, the
drug war is increasingly making me wish for a storming of the
bastille. My guess is that some day, something like this is going
to happen to a beloved celebrity and/or politicians kid. Only then
will the general public/govt officials start to get outraged and
wonder what in the hell we are doing. On the one hand, you can't
honestly expect a SWAT team not to fire when they encounter and
armed man in a raid, but that only strengthens the question of FOR
WHAT THE HELL DO WE NEED SWAT TEAMS GOING AFTER POT SMOKERS!? Since
most politicians seem to have "experimented" (what a joke that term
is) with pot at this point, somebody should be asking this question
every day at every press conference of every senator, governor, and
president. "Sir, you have admitted to smoking marijuana. Do you
feel that society would have been better served had your been
jumped by a SWAT team and thrown in prison? No? Oh, that's just a
good law for other people?"
|8.12.05 @ 3:08PM|#
Futhermore, there are lots of cops who don't want to raid a
house merely on suspicion of pot dealing, they are forced to as per
their job requirements.
Although it makes no difference to the families of the dead, I
personally think even LESS of such cops than I do of the true
believers. Let's compare: "I am going to imprison or kill a person
whom I believe to be a serious threat to society" versus "I am
going to imprison or kill a person whom I know is harmless, but
y'know, I have a mortgage to pay off, and my wife ran up the credit
card bills again, and the kids need braces, and I want to upgrade
to a bigger TV, and if I change careers at my age I'll have to take
a HUGE pay cut."
Nope, I'm not impressed.
|8.12.05 @ 3:08PM|#
I agree with Jennifer; people can always find a way to justify
what they do, or to convince themselves that things really didn't
happen the way that they did.
You know? Just once I'd like to see one of these masked bastards
get a taste of his own medicine! And the shooter get off by
claiming it was an accident!
|8.12.05 @ 3:15PM|#
Laws against everything and abitrary enforcement.
That is the expected end-state (maybe the current state?).
|8.12.05 @ 3:29PM|#
I've occasionally wondered what kind of training cops get - i.e. does anyone tell them not to treat "civilians" as less than human? It probably doesn't matter. Other service workers get that training and they still treat their customers like shit (unless they make tips!). Trust me, I know.
|8.12.05 @ 3:29PM|#
In the early 90s Titusville, FL police raided a house in error*.
The father shot the first cop that came in (in a black skimask and
with no poloce ID).
The wife and kids were terrorized and the guy arrested (somehow the
cops managed to not just shoot him). They found some vials of a
prescription painkiller that the dad was using because of a
construction accident and a couple of joints in the teenage boys
bedroom. Some drug kingpin.
At the trial the jury found him Not Guilty. People who had headed
the group to collect donations to fund his defense found themselves
harrassed by every police agency in Brevard County for the next two
years or so.
"No-knock" raids gone wrong were common in the late 80s and early
90s. I hoped** at the time that maybe cops might see the error of
their ways, but instead that have just upped the firepower.
*my recollection is vague; he may have been turned in by a neighbor
that was pissed off about something. He was not "dealing
drugs".
**hope is now completely gone. I always think the worst in any
story about cops.
|8.12.05 @ 3:39PM|#
Jennifer,
I work for the government.
Do you have any pointers about which directives I receive from the
democratic government I work for I should adhere to, and which ones
I should ignore?
|8.12.05 @ 3:42PM|#
Like, if Deputy Billy Bob doesn't think stopping some good old boys from stomping those mouthy queers who always parade around town like they own the place, does that count?
|8.12.05 @ 3:51PM|#
Anyone seen clockwork orange, or better yet read the book? Who
do you think wants to be a cop. There are definitely folks like my
neighbor who grew up on Andy Griffith reruns....BUT...
But then there are the other ones. Like SWAT guys. You know, The
USSR had no trouble finding really righteous KGB agents. As our
"police" don't. Remember back when we first heard about the glow
stick of faith being administered to prisoners anally in Iraq.
Wasn't it a former US prison guard who originally got caught?
The reason I trust my neighbor (besides the fact that the other
cops call him Goody 2 shoes) is that after the academy, he spent 6
months working at the Cook County/Chicago lock up. He told me that
if he'd even had to work there for one more pay period, he was
gonna flee the country. I remember when I first met him, he was
telling me about the "animals" there, I thought he was talking
about the prisoners, but then he made my day when he said, at any
given moment, you could improve society immeasurably by releasing
the inmates and jailing the jailers.
But come on people, this isn't news; really, this is just the
latest case. How long have we led the world now in per capita
inmate population? And it isn't just drugs, it's Jacob's favorite SCOTUS
nominee saying there was no reason not to arrest 12 year olds
for eating french fries as well. (sorry low blow, I just love to
document how even libertarians end up supporting a police state in
the end)
|8.12.05 @ 3:55PM|#
joe-
Unless the guys who raided that house had specific orders to do a
no-knock raid in the middle of the night, somebody should have had
the good sense to use his discretion and get on the bullhorn and
say "This is the police, step into an area where we can see you
with your hands up." Rather than going in a manner that's almost
indistinguishable from a thief in the night, just begging for an
armed response.
Just because you're ordered to do something bad doesn't mean you
have to do it in the most dangerous and inhumane way
possible.
As for you? Well, if the mayor orders you to ED an old lady's house
and give it to Walmart, I realize that there's no way to make it
pleasant for her, but if you have some discretion you can at least
make it no worse than it has to be. Like, say, giving her several
months to find a new situation instead of telling her to be out in
30 days. Like, when somebody serves her with the paperwork, have a
nice social worker go along and find out what kind of help she'll
need moving. Instead of sending the rudest cop on the force to tell
her that if she doesn't move they'll forcibly evict her.
Just because somebody is ordered to do a bad thing doesn't mean
they have to do it in the worst way possible.
|8.12.05 @ 3:58PM|#
joe
At what point would you decide that you were tired of following
orders you didn't agree with and go get another job?
Jennifer at 03:08 PM suggested that cops who don't like it should
quit their jobs. If your Deputy Billy Bob doesn't want to follow
his department's policies he needs to get his worthless ass out of
there.
Just a note here, in most departments drug cops are vounteers. No
one is forced into drug stakeout or raid duty. The money and percs
are enough to attract many. But in the end the one's who stay are
borderline psychos.
|8.12.05 @ 3:59PM|#
Do you have any pointers about which directives I receive
from the democratic government I work for I should adhere to, and
which ones I should ignore?
I can't possibly cover all contingencies, but how's this for
starters: if you're ordered to imprison or kill someone you know is
innocent, don't do it?
Unless, of course, you're afraid of losing your job, and figure
that hurting the innocent is WAY better than having to accept a
lower standard of living.
|8.12.05 @ 3:59PM|#
These tactics are necessary to the invention of the toilet, had they knocked first he may have flushed the dope first. Unfortunatelly, this is the result all too often.
Comment by: Jane at August 12, 2005 11:42 AM
Of course, the cops could just the water shut off to the house, and
wait for the suspect to use the toilet.
After that, simply go knock on the door.
|8.12.05 @ 4:02PM|#
What's truly strange is that the priority is the safety of the officers rates higher than the public they're supposed to protect and serve.
Comment by: David at August 12, 2005 01:41 PM
Do you seriously believe that "To Serve and Protect" refers to duty
the police have toward the serfs? Or is it that we have a duty to
serve and protect the police?
|8.12.05 @ 4:04PM|#
Do you have any pointers about which directives I receive
from the democratic government I work for I should adhere to, and
which ones I should ignore?
Not to speak for Jennifer, but I'd say, but I'd say you have an
ethical duty to ignore any immoral ones.
|8.12.05 @ 4:07PM|#
Ahhhhh not only was I too slow since Jennifer already answered, but I really need to learn to use that "Preview" button...
|8.12.05 @ 4:11PM|#
Too much pontificating about the noble duty to ignore immoral
orders, and not enough common sense: Going in without warning or
clear identification was horrible practice. (And "clear
identification" needs to be "clear" to the person in question. A
half-awake guy in the dark can't recognize cops as easily as an
alert guy in daylight.)
I'm no SWAT expert, but if they use the option most likely to
result in an armed response then the people who make the decision
are endangering the lives of the cops under their command. They
could have arrested him when he was leaving his house in daylight,
so that he'd be in an open area where he can be easily surrounded
and unable to destroy evidence.
|8.12.05 @ 4:13PM|#
Too much pontificating about the noble duty to ignore
immoral orders
Too much? Hardly. I think we could use a lot more of it.
|8.12.05 @ 4:18PM|#
Jennifer,
"I can't possibly cover all contingencies, but how's this for
starters: if you're ordered to imprison or kill someone you know is
innocent, don't do it?"
They didn't know he was innocent. I know, I know, stupid drug laws,
I'm right there with you. But they were ordered to raid the house
of a criminal, and (stupidly) concluded he was dangerous enough to
warrant an armed intrusion.
Then, the criminal they decided was dangerous enough to justify a
SWAT team pointed a gun at them.
There are five steps here. 1) The drug laws. 2) The decision by the
police and DA to enforce the laws on the books. 3) The decision to
bust this guy. 4) The decision to use a SWAT team. 5) The decision
by the police to shoot the guy when he pointed the gun at
him.
1 is stupid, but not the cops' fault. 2 is the right thing to do. 3
I dunno. Looks like they were busting a small fry, might not have
been worth it. 4 is stupid, but I don't know whose fault it was -
the cops on the raid, or their bosses. 5 seems unavoidable, once
1-4 are already in place.
Put the blame where it belongs for this tragedy, is all I'm
saying.
|8.12.05 @ 4:20PM|#
Oops, 4.5) the decision to enter the house without clearly indentifying themselves. Stupid, but I don't know whose fault that was.
|8.12.05 @ 4:24PM|#
And yet we wonder why mainstream people think libertarians are merely clean, well spoken anarchists when the main theme of this thread is "all cops are corrupt, evil people that want to kill us all." and some write(obliquely)about going to kill cops. Insane.
|8.12.05 @ 4:26PM|#
"2) The decision by the police and DA to enforce the laws on the
books."
"2 is the right thing to do."
So joe, are you saying that enforcing bad and immoral laws is ok
because "they are on the books?"
|8.12.05 @ 4:31PM|#
thoreau
The not giving a warning is a policy followed so the evil drug
dealers cannot flush their evil drugs down the toilet. Their
reasoning is that if they stand outside and call out a warning and
give the guy time to process it that's what he'll do.
joe
Drug laws are to a large extent cops' fault. Their unions and
associations spend huge sums of money lobbying for them.
But of course for the most part drug laws are the fault of our
neighbors. Even the one's who say "Oh, I'm not worried about the
guy who wants to smoke a joint now and then" just want to give
endless power to the police "to keep the children from getting
hooked" of course and especially well you never know about "those
people" across town (yes "those people", you know).
|8.12.05 @ 4:35PM|#
And yet we wonder why mainstream people think libertarians
are merely clean, well spoken anarchists when the main theme of
this thread is "all cops are corrupt, evil people that want to kill
us all." and some write(obliquely)about going to kill cops.
Insane.
And people wonder why some decry the quality of education in this
country when they observe the reading comprehension skills of
morons like BladeDoc.
|8.12.05 @ 4:37PM|#
Jennifer clearly right on this. There is simply no justification
for ruining (or ending) someone's life simply because you're told
to do so when you don't even believe it is the right thing to do. I
can't stand the true believers who think someone deserves that
treatment for smoking pot, and yes those who pass the drug laws
bare much of the responsibility, but if I believed in hell I'd
think there was a special place reserved for those who go along
with immorality simply because it was their job. Take a particular
subject - this guy or anyone else about to be arrested, raided,
etc. - and ask: Do you believe it is a moral to destroy this
person's life? If you answer no, then you simply cannot in good
conscience take part in that destruction.
Christ, the last thing we need is a country so full of "respect for
authority" that we all go around blindly obeying every law,
directive, order, rule, etc. that we are given without regard to
its morality, or lack of it, as the case may be. Does anyone think
the marshal who returned the fugitive slave to his "owner" yet
personally believed slavery was immoral, did the right thing
because, after all, it was his job? If so you're not the kind of
company I'd like to keep.
|8.12.05 @ 4:40PM|#
joe-
So, not too long ago Texas had some sodomy laws. Any thoughts on
the matter?
Isaac-
What about arresting him when he's outside of his house so he can't
destroy evidence? Yeah, it's really suspenseful on 24 when they
raid a terrorist hideout and run with their guns drawn to stop the
bad guy before he can destroy evidence/detonate a bomb/kill himself
to take his knowledge to the grave.
But in real life, a sudden raid on a house seems like a good way to
wind up with a violent encounter, while grabbing somebody as he
leaves his house seems safer.
I'm no expert, but my understanding is that with enough patience,
creativity, and careful planning it is possible to arrest almost
anybody with minimal risk of violence. No, not everybody, but close
to it.
|8.12.05 @ 4:44PM|#
I'm no expert, but my understanding is that with enough
patience, creativity, and careful planning it is possible to arrest
almost anybody with minimal risk of violence. No, not everybody,
but close to it.
You might think so. But for some reason the police in this country
have decided to base their policies on the exact opposite approach.
Shock and awe, I guess.
|8.12.05 @ 4:56PM|#
So joe, are you saying that enforcing bad and immoral laws
is ok because "they are on the books?"
Matt, if government we elect creates the immoral laws and we
reelect them again, are we an immoral society to begin with?
Obviously we elected these immoral law makers and have yet to
remove them from office and install people who will glady remove
these immoral laws. You might as well ask joe if he enjoys being
between a rock and a hard place. He has to abide by the laws that
our elected officials create.
|8.12.05 @ 5:01PM|#
"I find myself saying this a lot lately: I have a lot of respect
for people whose job is to risk their lives on a daily basis to
keep safety, order,and ultimately, freedom in our society.
I'm bothered by people who hate cops just for the hell of it,
especially when a lot of those people have had well-deserved
encounters with the police."
I have a hard time understanding/believing that a cop's job is to
"risk thier life on a daily basis to keep safety, order and freedom
in our society." I've had my share of encounters with the police
and they are almost exclusively traffic-related.
Cop: "Did you know you were driving 45 in a 35?"
Cop: "You didn't come to a full and complete stop at that stop
sign"
My response to both: "Its a divided highway and I've been looking
all around and there's no one else even on this road (except you
hiding behind that bush over there). What harm am I causing? Better
yet, who are you protecting?"
Unfortunately, most police are just an extension of the IRS, here
to collect more taxes from you in the form of "penalties for bad
behavior." Not to downplay the horror of being shot in your home by
comparing against moving violations, but its amazing -- when you
think about your own personal experiences -- the ratio of times
you've been "served or protected" vs. the times you've simply been
"served" with a bill which only "serves" to maintain funding for a
useless bunch of pigs.
|8.12.05 @ 5:09PM|#
Do you seriously believe that "To Serve and Protect" refers
to duty the police have toward the serfs? Or is it that we have a
duty to serve and protect the police?
No, but is it too much trouble to pretend it does?
|8.12.05 @ 5:12PM|#
The question of how could people in a free country allow this to
go on reminded me of a story I heard on NPR this morning. The story
was about how the children of people who need to write wills need
to talk with their parents so that there is an equitable
distribution of emotion-filled items. It mentioned that the most
common reason for rich parents to disown children is when the kid
is addicted to drugs. It causes more "disowning" than going to
prison, according to the report.
If that is accurate, I see it as HIGHLY unlikely that this nation's
attitude toward drug users will change in the near term. As much as
our resident troll Juanita / Jane / whoever can give us a laugh or
anneurism, I have a feeling (s)he has attitudes that are in line
with far more people than anyone else on this board. I hope I'm
wrong on that, but I fear I'm not.
|8.12.05 @ 5:13PM|#
There is simply no justification for ruining (or ending)
someone's life simply because you're told to do so when you don't
even believe it is the right thing to do.
This is where I asked how does the shooter feel now that he knows
the guy had merely 2 ounces of pot? For all we know, he may have
went in with the quality of intel that led America into Iraq
looking for mass stockpiles of WMD. When being briefed for this
raid, he may have been told that this guy is a confirmed drug
runner known to be armed and dangerous and to treat him with
extreme prejudice. The guy pulls a gun out of defense and there you
have it.
And again, as to immoral laws, I recall a majority of H&R
commenters calling for the reelection of Bush, who always upholds
the rule of law. Now commenters are suggesting we pick and choose
which laws are moral/immoral and follow those we seek to be moral?
Maybe electing a flip-flopper does have some merit.
|8.12.05 @ 5:45PM|#
Jumping back to the semantics topic, I think that Jennifer and
Isaac are right about how cops now make reference to "civilians"
rather than "citizens."
Another such trend that I find troubling is the switch from using
the term Peace Officer to Law Enforcement Officer.
|8.12.05 @ 5:51PM|#
Nathan, you're not crazy. The eccentric guy in question was Donald Scott (it was an ongoing story here for several years) and there are a few pieces that mention him here including Ill-Gotten Gains and Good faith breeds bad cops.
|8.12.05 @ 6:04PM|#
It's been years since I frequented any law enforcement
discussion boards. But I'll bet the cops there -- if they are
discussing this at all -- are saying that the cop in this case is
the true victim. Just like cops always are when they harm an
innocent civilian.
It takes a special breed of person to believe that "It was
Amadou Diallo who set the stage for tragedy."
And for those of you wondering, yes, I also posted that above
comment here
at at August 8, 2005 10:05 PM. I've seen that type of mindset so
much that I'll probably keep posting it every time a story like
this somes up.
Expected comments by cops on various discussion boards:
1. "What a terrible tragedy. Our prayers are with the
officer."
2. "You weren't there. You don't know all the facts. You don't have
the right to engage in cop-bashing."
3. "We police our own, so there is no need for an outside
investigation."
4. "Reporting this in the liberal-media* is a
violation of the officer's right to be innocent until proven
guilty. I guess constitutional rights don't apply to cops. Woe is
us."
* "Liberal media" has included the editorial pages
of the Wall Street Journal.
|8.12.05 @ 6:07PM|#
JSM:
"For all we know, he may have went in with the quality of intel
that led America into Iraq looking for mass stockpiles of
WMD."
Yup. Of course the results of poor intel (or not using it) cuts
both ways. I remember an incident in Portland, OR back in 99 where
the police had good intel on a heavily armed felon with prior armed
confrontation record, and didn't use it. Perp (using AK-47) killed
one cop (Officer Colleen Waibel), wounded another. Oops!
Bottom line; War sucks, the soldier prosecuting his mission rarely
knows all the facts, and those making policy need to be held
responsible.
Blaming the implementors of a policy for the policy itself isn't
necessarily reasonable.
|8.12.05 @ 6:17PM|#
I recall a majority of H&R commenters calling for the
reelection of Bush
I don't. If it was a majority at all it was a pretty small
majority. Either way, most the posters here were neither shills for
Bush nor great fans of Kerry.
Now commenters are suggesting we pick and choose which laws are
moral
I sure hope so. I'd say it's more than a suggestion; it's an
ethical duty.
Maybe electing a flip-flopper does have some merit.
Whether Kerry was any more of a flip-flopper than any politician is
another issue and moot at this point anyway, but I don't see how it
is relevant to not obeying immoral laws. That isn't flip-flopping,
that's just being a decent human being.
|8.12.05 @ 7:43PM|#
This is yet another tragedy of the militarization of civilian
law enforcement. You can't use the same Rules of Engagement against
suspected domestic criminals that you would on a battlefield and
expect to avoid this kind of bloodshed.
As for whether the cop who shot this guy was a jack-booted thug, I
doubt it. He's a victim of a BAD set of ROEs, much like Lon
Horiuchi, the FBIs HRT Sniper who pulled the trigger on Vicki
Weaver at Ruby Ridge.
I mean, far be it from me to defend someone who shot someone while
they believed they were defending their home from unidentified
attackers (especially since I know I'd have done the same
thing).
But the sad reality is that these guys are taught to perform
dynamic entry close-quarters combat maneuvers much like a military
counter-terrorism team - and then they are ordered to conduct
operations against suspected criminals using those military
tactics.
There are occasions that warrant such a response (the body-armored
bank robbers in LA, for example) - but those situations are WAY too
rare. So you end up with some expensive, highly-trained guys with
nothing to do except bust the local barkeep who deals a little
marijuana on the side.
It's a bad, BAD idea to use exceptional force in unexceptional
situations. Whoever authorized this particular raid needs to have
his ass handed to him. But it's unlikely - once the cops were
getting shot at - that the cop who killed the guy felt he had any
choice. Avoiding that Catch-22 is something that pulling back the
leash on when such units are employed would definitely stop this
kind of crap from happening.
(Outside of crooked cops and stupid cops, which DOES happen, sadly.
But thankfully, that's rarer than most TV shows would lead one to
believe.)
|8.12.05 @ 8:42PM|#
Rob-
I agree. The blame lies with the people who made the decision to
conduct the raid in this manner, not with the guy who pulled the
trigger (unless, of course, he was in on the decision process).
Once the situation was setup, and the cops entered at night without
clearly identifying themselves, it was almost inevitable that he
would seek to defend himself, and at that point the cops had no
choice but to defend themselves as well.
It is, of course, true that this is a direct result of the drug
war, but let's not shift all of the blame onto the distant
decision-makers who steer that monstrosity. There's enough blame to
go around, and some of it falls on whoever decided to arrest him at
home, at night, without clearly identifying themselves or
announcing their presence.
And let's not pretend that the only solution is the currently
unattainable one (legalization). It is possible to arrest pot
dealers in a less risky manner. I don't want to come across as
defending the practice of arresting pot dealers, but it's better
than killing them.
It is inevitable that the Drug War will be a disaster. But that
doesn't mean that the police leadership should get a free ride for
making the disaster even bigger.
|8.12.05 @ 10:43PM|#
The concealed weapons permit, was a "major factor" in the
department's decision to involve the SWAT team, Voss said.
"The potential for violence was there," Voss said. SWAT officers
must knock first and announce their presence, Voss said. If no one
answers, the door comes down. "Unfortunately, this is one of those
that's gone bad," he said.
I remembered this quote from the original Sun-Sentinal article.
They sent in the SWAT team because he had a pistol permit(which, at
least in CT, are issued through local P.D.s). Poor bastard.
|8.13.05 @ 1:06AM|#
Hey, Thoreau,
Has it crossed your mind that maybe there was never any intention
of arresting this guy,...of taking him alive?
|8.13.05 @ 7:47AM|#
JW-
If I start thinking thoughts like that I might get depressed enough
to go have a drink with Warren.
(No offense to Warren, it's just that I never drink. So I'd have to
be pretty darn depressed to start.)
|8.13.05 @ 9:47AM|#
There's sure a lot of big talk here from some people about how important it is to disobey immoral laws. Not that I disagree, but no decision in the world is too easy to make for someone who neither has to actually make it nor live with the consequences. Give that a little thought, you know?
|8.13.05 @ 1:48PM|#
For those who say the SWAT guys deserve some sympathy, I"m not
buying it at all. I don't even care if they thought they were
acting in good faith.
I don't remember where I read this, but a writer from a previous
generation pointed out that when people cause great harm through
action or inaction which they believed to be harmless, what matters
is not the sincerity of their beliefs, but whether they had a RIGHT
to those beliefs, based on the evidence available.
The writer gave the following example: It's 17th century England. A
man owns a boat used to ferry colonists across the Atlantic to
settle in the New World. Now it's an old boat, and it hasn't had
any maintenance or overhaul work done in awhile, and when a group
of colonists rents the boat to make the crossing the man thinks
maybe he should have some work done on the boat first. But that
would be awfully expensive. And the man figures the boat's made a
hundred crossings already with no troubles at all (so there's no
reason to just assume there will be trouble now), and besides, a
merciful God would not allow anything to happen to a boat filled
with pious, innocent families and children out to found a city in
the sight of God, right?
So when the boat sets out on its journey and goes down at sea with
the loss of everyone on board, the man was as shocked as anybody,
and pocketed his insurance check with a clear conscience. But
though he felt free of guilt, the facts of the matter showed he had
no right to such a feeling.
Previous posters in this thread have pointed out that this case got
almost NO mention in the media. Very few Americans are aware of it.
But you can bet that a lot of cops are. I'm sure it's made the
cop-message boards mentioned by another poster here, the message
boards where the cops earnestly and sincerely explain why Amadou
Diallo really brought his fate upon himself.
So the SWAT team members no doubt knew more than most of us here
about the disastrous history of SWAT team drug raids--the people
killed for tiny amounts of drugs; the people killed who had no
drugs at all, but the SWAT team got the address wrong; the children
killed while the cops shot at their suspect parents--all of that.
And that's why I don't CARE how sincere these SWAT team guys were.
Even if they thought they were doing the right thing, they had no
right to think that, based upon the evidence already available to
them.
The only way I'll sympathize with any of these killers is if, upon
reflection, they not only feel remorse for their actions but make
public statements to the fact, pointing out that the number of
times this SWAT stuff has backfired suggests that maybe it's not a
good practice, however reasonable it may sound in theory. But I bet
they all either keep their mouths shut or scramble to explain why
really, they bear no responsibility for anything bad.
|8.13.05 @ 2:49PM|#
Not that I disagree, but no decision in the world is too
easy to make for someone who neither has to actually make it nor
live with the consequences. Give that a little thought, you
know?
Oh please. Sounds like the kind excuses people offer for doing
things they know, or ought to know, they shouldn't. Easy for me or
not I stand by what I said. We need more people, especially those
with the power to do great harm, to think about the morality of
their actions and not simply go along with the crowd. I don't think
it is all that much to ask, but apparently it is too much to hope
for.
|8.13.05 @ 7:03PM|#
Here's something that I sort of said before but I want to make
it explicit:
If a commander decides to conduct the raid in a manner that he
knows will probably lead to an armed response by the suspect, isn't
he endangering the lives of the cops under his command? Do the cop
message boards have anything to say about that?
|8.14.05 @ 12:22AM|#
There also seems to be very little media coverage of this story
or the Marc Emery case in Canada. I think the DEA is actively
trying to squelch any stories regarding good people (who might be
just like friends and neighbors) getting caught up in the war on
marijuana users and killed or sent to prison for life. I think the
DEA realizes these stories could be used against them.
I am an AOL user and I noticed this morning that they had a story
on Marc Emery, but it has been pulled. All of the other stories are
the same, but the only story regarding Marc was over a week old
(Reuters), not a sign of the new story what so ever. But that's not
the really interesting part.
In the story, it had a poll asking if the Canadians should refuse
to extradite Marc, it was like over 70% in favor of refusing. It
also asked if marijuana laws were to strict, lenient etc. It had a
wide margin on the too strict end. I can't recall the exact
numbers, but it was like over 60-70% on the too strict choice. I
was going to check it again, but it was gone. I was really
surprised myself and tonight I wondered, if the DEA may have had
that story spiked. Is there any way to find out?
There is no sign of the story on AOL news now. I have this really
suspicious feeling about the whole thing, it's a pretty strong
feeling that the DEA is doing everything it can to spin this, but
they can't, so they just erase the news or intimidate people into
pulling stories. I also have not seen any coverage on the Emery
case on the national news here, which I think is very
interesting.
|8.14.05 @ 10:32AM|#
Some excerpts to illuminate my point:
"Yet another reason to have absolutely no respect for these goons.
I seriously think they use these SWAT tactics essentially because
they think it's fun to dress up and play army-guy and they get off
on the "excitement" of a big raid."
"Because you need military equipment if you're going to fight The
Enemy. And that's how cops view non-cops--not citizens deserving of
protection, but The Enemy." "Since there is no were near enough
real crime to justify the number of SWAT teams you need to
manufacture some "crime"
"When you're talking about murderous, power-abusing thugs there are
two possibilities--they're sociopaths (or even psychopaths), in
which case the idea of a conscience doesn't even apply, or else
they behave in good conscience because they've convinced themselves
that the people they kill really were threats."
"The ones who still have some humanity, you mean." (i.e. only the
cops who use pot)
I could continue but I feel fairly strongly that my reading
comprehension is good enough to understand from the threads noted
that "cops" or "SWAT cops" are subhuman psychopaths who invent
crimes so they can kill people. Other minor themes are also pot
should be legal (I agree) and cops should announce their entry (I
agree). But the major ranting has been clearly of the all cops are
eeeevil variety. In my opinion this is not an attitude that
will/can advance a libertarian agenda.
|8.14.05 @ 11:02AM|#
BladeDoc--
As I pointed out in my post at 1:48 on August 13, thse SWAT teams
know far more than the average American about SWAT activities gone
wrong; they knew damn well (or should have known) that such things
often lead to catastrophe. And they did it anyway.
If a pediatrician shakes a baby to death, I'm not letting him off
the hook because "Gee, he didn't think he was doing anything
dangerous, he thought the baby would have fun!" The dumb SOB should
have known.
Incidentally, you seem to disagree with my theory that cops need
lots of military equipment because they're fighting The Enemy. So
tell me, why do YOU think they've militarized themselves?
|8.14.05 @ 11:03AM|#
Also, BladeDoc, I haven't heard any mea culpas from the SWAT members now that the damage has been done.
|8.14.05 @ 11:06AM|#
Face the facts:
Politicians make unconstitutional laws.
Mindless cops enforce those "laws".
The rest of us pay for it all with our lives (war on drugs = war on
Americans).
The fact that no one in law enforcement will tell the truth proves
that cops are brainwashed into a "us vs them" mentality.This is why
cops will always justify deadly "force" and then try to cover it up
later.
Amerika has been a police state since 911.
The treasonous politicians will not be happy until every non-cop
and non-pol has been processed at least once through any of our
various prisons.
Why doesn't anyone fight back? Are we all sheep?
JUICE|8.14.05 @ 7:29PM|#
They didn't know he was innocent.
Yeah, in America you're guilty until proven innocent (or killed by
urban commandos serving a warrant)
|8.15.05 @ 5:05AM|#
Well,maybe the protesters of a bygone era,the 60s and 70s were
right..PIGS.
After 33 years and well over a TRILLION dollars we still have
shootings by the PIGS to control that evil,marajuina.
You see, if it were legalized think of the people that would be out
of a job and the monetary value of it would go to hell and the
authorities would have a reduction of income.
Legalize the stuff and let the chips fall where they may. I'm
damned sure it could be no worse than the present situation.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245